How Many of Your Favourite Films Pass "the Bechdel Test"?

[Bad Jim]

Terminator 2: Ehhh.. need to review, but if I had to guess I'd say no.

Sarah busts into Miles Dysons' house to murder him. Shoots him, then she says to Tarissa Dyson:

"Get down on the floor *****! Get down NOW!"

 

[Colour Scientist]

15.The Truman Show
Yes. I think.

The only interaction between two women that I can think of is between Meryl and Truman's mother and they only talk about Truman, as far as I remember.

 

[Darren716]

Let's see here in Forrest Gump the two main female characters never even meet eachother let alone have a conversation.

 

[namhorFnodroG]

Okay... Let's see here.

The Dark Knight: No
Lord Of The Rings: No
Scott Pilgrim vs. The world: No
Aristocats: Yes (Do cats count?)
The Nightmare Before Christmas: No
Austin Powers: NO
The Elephant Man: Yes? (I haven't watched it in ages. Can't really remember.)
Starwars: No
A Clockwork Orange: No
No Country for Old Men: No

2 Out of 10...

Spoiler: Fail

 

[Pifflestick]

1) To pass, the film must have more than two female characters that have names (Okay, having them be named is kinda important, though even then you could POSSIBLY make a film where names are never mentions, but that's beside the point. You need to have TWO females. Um, why? Can we not have ONE female that's a realistic and positive character? Is a female discussing Plato with a male worth so much less than her having the same conversation with a female?)

2) These two female characters must talk to each other (Even if we ignore my first problem of WHY do we need two females, we still have why do they need to talk to each other? A story can be told about two sets of people who never meet personally but affect each other's lives, is the story somehow less feminist because the women never met?)

3) They must talk to each other about something other than a man/men (So two women discussing (Oh, so two women CAN'T discuss Plato, because that's discussing MEN! So the works of men are totally off-limits because MEN did them, and of course MEN are never allowed to be discussed by good female characters. Well, there goes most of history, science, philosophy, and hell, most of mythology too. I'm not saying its great that history is so centred on men, but sadly it IS, so saying they can't talk about men implies that a LOT of topics are off-limits.)

This "test" doesn't so much show that the director made positive or realistic, as that the director was able to have two ninnies blather about make-up for a minute before cutting back to the men, which is exactly what we should be AVOIDING. Not only that, but amazing works can easily fail this test, and terrible works can easily pass, its not a test on the merits of the storytelling, narrative, characters, or anything important, but whether the writer wrote in "Cut to Character A talking to Character B about her favourite brand of lipstick"

Some of my favourite movies:
Lawrence of Arabia: Fails
Toy Story: Fails
Back to the Future: Fails (I think, its been a while)
Clerks: Fails (I think, again, been a while)
Lord of the Rings Trilogy: Fails

EDIT: Forgot to mention, this isn't to say that there are enough good female characters in movies, just that this test is woefully ill-equipped to do... Anything at all to solve the problem.

The Bechdel test isn't about good characters or good movies, its about having a female perspective. Not only that but movies can be very feminist without passing. The real issue is when you take the movie land scape as a whole rather then individual movies. The female to male ratio for possible jobs for actors is way off, something like 30-70. An overwhelming number of movies is a male dominated cast with a male protagonist. The test helps to point out this issue in an intentionally funny way. The real solution is having more female centered stories not trying to fit these rules, it points out the problem rather then giving parameters to fix it. When you think about the test, you think about the core issues that cause the test. I think a lot of people have been missing that point and getting into an unnecessary huff.

Listen, I'm not saying that females don't need more representation in media because they do, and I'm not saying that we don't need more female perspectives in media because again, they do. But even in THAT regard, the Bechdel test FAILS. Again, having a test that asks if the female characters are realistic and positive will do way more to make sure we're getting more female perspectives than asking if two women have a little chit-chat at some point. Hell, using the Bechdel test there's plenty of horror movies that pass where the two female characters are thick as a brick and are just there to get killed, is that the representation you're looking for?

If you want representation and female perspectives then you should be asking if the female character is, as I keep saying, realistic and positive. Giving a bad representation like in horror films is worse than being given no representation, at least with no representation the women aren't being used just as pointless filler or worse, as cannon fodder. Plus, a character that's realistic and positive will likely give a female perspective, where-as the aforementioned filler and cannon fodder will give no perspective what-so-ever.

 

[Pifflestick]

You need to have TWO females. Um, why? ... [and] why do they need to talk to each other?

Representation

Can we not have ONE female that's a realistic and positive character? Is a female discussing Plato with a male worth so much less than her having the same conversation with a female? ... [and] is the story somehow less feminist because the women never met? ... MEN are never allowed to be discussed by good female characters... This "test" doesn't so much show that the director made positive or realistic [characters]

The test isn?t about good female characters or feminism. That?s another debate. It?s about general representation, which is much broader and easier to demonstrate and identify to people than quality characters or feminism.

Oh, so two women CAN'T discuss Plato, because that's discussing MEN!

I will allow the two named female characters to discuss real-world men of status. I can?t think of a single film that shifts the test from fail to pass thanks to this concession. Can you give me an example?

its not a test on the merits of the storytelling, narrative, characters, or anything important,

No. It?s not. But is representation not important?

this test is woefully ill-equipped to do... Anything at all to solve the problem.

It collects data and presents it. I wonder what conclusions we can draw from it. Do you think there?s *something* to learn?

I brought up representation in my last post, so just look at the one above this. What I want to tackle with this post is you're points about the allowing of mentioning real men of status and the data collected. The major problem with the Bechdel test is its ridiculously broad, broad as the river Thames, and so any data collected is unreliable. The test does not clarify what it means by "men", so at its broadest definition any discussion of anything from sexuality to men of status can easily cause a movie to fail the test. If a test is so broad then the data collected will be inaccurate, giving an inaccurate idea of the state of the subject tested. Using the Bechdel test a ridiculous amount of movies fail, but if you look for realistic and/or positive female characters you find a lot more movies pass the test. Not to mention it'd probably be a good idea to rule out documentaries and such films because inserting a female into Lawrence of Arabia would have actually been detrimental to the film.

Also, I do want to just bring up this point on representation. When I asked why you need two females and why you need them to talk, you bring up representation. Is that to say a movie with a cast of two where one is male and the other is female is not doing enough for representation? Or how about movies with several different females who are in completely separated locations and never directly converse though their characters are (again) realistic and positive, is this not doing enough for representation. The reason I brought that point up is because there's a wide range of ways you can tell a story, and you could easily have one really good female character or even MANY good female characters who just never converse with each other. This is again a problem with the test being too broad.

 

[Dangit2019]

Serenity passes. And I just did a quick jog through my memory, but it seems to be the ONLY movie I've watched that passes.

Not surprised. Joss Whedon is actually an active feminist, so I can imagine that he doesn't like making all of his female characters talk about men all the time.

OT:

Avengers: No. Close, though (Marie Hill never talked one on one with Black Widow)
The Dark Knight: No.
Inception: No. (Ma talked with Ariadne, but it was about the night she blackmailed Cobb)
Chronicle: No.
Back to the Future: No? (I think the mother talks with Jennifer, but they only talk about Marty)
Scott Pilgrim: No.
Waking Life: Yes (also, if you haven't heard of it, please look it up).
Star Wars: No.

This is a bit relevant:
[link]http://youtu.be/V2uNKqcsAeg[/link]

 

[DocBot]

1) To pass, the film must have more than two female characters that have names
2) These two female characters must talk to each other
3) They must talk to each other about something other than a man/men

Now, this will probably sound really bad but I'm going to say it anyways: There is probably more than one porn that follows these THREE criteria perfectly. I mean, there has to be at least one piece of proof on the internet though linking it here would be a bad idea.

The criteria is too broad of scope cause they want to loop in as much as possible.

 

[darkfox85]

Leaving the grand and largely baseless theorizing aside, might I suggest that this "positive reinforcement" gets such a negative response because the people doing it are unbearably inept? Social Justice types have completely forgotten how to market their causes. There are so many little ways to get people interested and participating, but these days most of the people trying to "help" would rather throw long-winded rants in people's faces. One gets more people with honey than with vinegar, and it might be worth a bit of time to figure out what people find off-putting about one's rhetoric and change it, rather than getting angry all over again about their reactions.

My suggestion on solving the problem of the small number of female directors working today would be to find films by female directors with the potential to appeal to something beyond the film school crowd that already cares about these issues and get them out there where people can see them. "Punisher: Warzone" might not be a classic work of art, but it's a damn good action movie and it can win you a lot of converts you would never reach otherwise if you swing it the right way (it also has a pretty good commentary track from the director and her DP, which doesn't hurt). Making someone a fan of an actual female director, especially a vocal fan, will give you more practical results than getting ten people interested in the idea of one.

I get the impression you feel the "Social Justice types" should be more softly-softly with their approach? Sugar coat the pill? Talk down to people? Apologise beforehand? A reasonable and feeble alternative to those long-winded rants? Sometimes they do those things and take a lot more flak for it.

People don?t like to be challenged ? that?s not the challengers fault, and it?s not their fault the challenge is interpreted as ineptitude largely on the basis of being confrontational (which is kind of the basis of a challenge.) Furthermore, it depresses me to see these types of people blame themselves for social failings of others almost as much as other people blaming them for it under the ambiguous charge of ineptitude.

Your own suggestions reek of the insincerity and cowardice of those expressing them, and their effectiveness I can only see as extremely indirect, minor, and passive aggressive. But I suppose they don?t run the risk of being "unbearably inept" or counter-productive. Except maybe people will call you out? "You only like that because it?s directed by a woman. Its political correctness gone mad" (it?s a long shot though.) Putting views across is hard and it?s not the critics fault if the listener is too thin-skinned or thick-skulled.

The only true way is to try!

 

[GonvilleBromhead]

The problem with the Bechdel test is that it rather ignores storytelling and setting. Attempting to satisfy the Bechdel criteria in a film set on the North West Frontier during the late 19th Century would hinder the story. The social situation prior to the 1960s means that, in many genres, it would be rather inaccurate to have women in a position where they can further the plot in any meaningful way. Romance films inevitably fail, largely because the primary character's are primarily going to be conversing about romance, be they male or female

 

[Tallim]

Guys, I don't think it's trying to prove anything, at least in a serious manner.

And I just realized... I don't think Lord of the Rings passes this XD

Yeah none of the three movies pass.

Matrix: Pretty sure it doesn't

Trinity talks to Switch twice (three times?) during the movie, whether it is enough to count as a "conversation" is one thing and the first one at least is about removing the bug from Neo so it depends if you call that "about a man"

 

[ReinWeisserRitter]

Jesus christ, sexism really is all some of you talk about around here.

 

[Corporal Yakob]

(Looks at his favourite movies, most about WW2 and not partisan organisations or spies) Well so much for that then.....

 

[wintercoat]

Hello The Escapist. I hope you're well. I love films dudes, but this plays into something I've been thinking about for a while now. I'm just wondering how many of our favourite films pass what's called "the Bechdel test."

It's pretty straight forward:
1) To pass, the film must have more than two female characters that have names
2) These two female characters must talk to each other
3) They must talk to each other about something other than a man/men

Lemmie share my own top 10:

Blade Runner: No
Silence of the Lambs: Yes (Starling and her friend from time to time)
Alien: Yes (Ripley and Lambert discuss escaping)
The Exorcist: Yes
Reservoir Dogs: No
The Terminator: No
Thelma & Louise: Yes (definitely)
The Dark Knight: No
Taxi Driver: No
Shawshank Redemption: No

How about yours?

Considering how many people in this thread have the mistaken assumption that the Bechdel test judges an individual movies quality, maybe you should edit the OP to mention that it is a tool used to gather data to track a trend in the movie industry, not to judge individual films.

 

[Colour Scientist]

In the context of the movie though that makes complete sense which is why it's silly that people take this test seriously as a way of gauging gender representation in film.

Not saying it doesn't make sense, I love that film, but the OP was asking whether or not the films passed the test and, strictly speaking, The Truman Show didn't.

 

[Aurgelmir]

I find the Bechdel test to be a bit odd. It puts emphasis on two women who don't talk about men. But it doesn't set the man in any sort of context.

I can see where it comes from, and I can see what it tries to prove, I just find it flawed. Heck I can have the strongest female lead in a movie with no other characters and it fails the test.

(Also as the webcomic Dumbing of Age points out: Lesbian porn passes the test most of the time )